Hi, On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:04 PM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 10:23 23-01-2012, The IESG wrote: >> >> The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to >> consider the following document: >> - 'xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification' >> <draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt> as a Proposed Standard >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2012-02-06. Exceptionally, comments may be > > > From the Introduction Section: > > > "This document clarifies, in the case of such redirected queries, > how the RCODE and status bits correspond to the initial query > cycle (where the (first) xNAME was detected) and subsequent or > final query cycles." > > From Section 2.1: > > "[RFC1035] states that the AA bit is to be set based on whether the > server providing the answer with the first owner name in the answer > section is authoritative. This specification of the AA bit has not > been changed. This specification of the AA bit has not been changed." Actually, the last sentence above is not duplicated in the draft. > And Section 2.2: > > "[RFC4035] unambiguously states that the AD bit is to be set in a DNS > response header only if the DNSSEC enabled server believes all RRs in > the answer and authority sections of that response to be authentic. > This specification of the AD bit has not been changed." > > It is not clear to me what is being clarified about the status bits. This draft brings together the aspects of the AA, AD, and RCODE bits related to xNAME RR query cycles and expresses them clearly and succinctly. As such it has been approved by the DNSEXT WG. I do not believe that text has to make a change to be a clarification. > In Section 3: > > "The RCODE in the ultimate DNS response > MUST BE set based on the final query cycle leading to that > response." > > Shouldn't the "BE" be lowercased? Yes, thanks for pointing this out. "BE" should probably be lowercase. > The status of the memo suggests sending comments to > namedroppers@xxxxxxxxxxxx. Is that IETF mailing list still being used by > DNSEXT? That was the mailing list at the time of the -00 personal draft version. Sorry I missed updating the mailing list reference somewhere along the way. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx > Regards, > -sm _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf